NARVIR SINGH,REWARI vs. ITO WARD - 2, REWARI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8735/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 June 2022AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 94,47,891/- on account of long-term capital gain on sale of immovable property. The assessee's appeal against this addition was dismissed by the CIT(A). The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of long-term capital gain was justified and whether the assessee was entitled to deductions under Section 54B and 54F.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 54B,Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Hearing: 28.06.2022Pronounced: 30.06.2022

ORDER Per Anadee Nath Misshra, Accountant Member: (A) This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 16.10.2019 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Rohtak (for short the ld CIT(A). The grounds of appeal are as under:-

“1. That the order passed by the Ld. AO is bad in law and facts and is liable to be quashed.

2.

That on the facts and in law that notice u/s 148 notice dated 17.03.2016 issued by the assessing officer under section 148 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( 'the Act') is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio.

3.

That the Ld. AO has erred in law and facts in making the addition of Rs.94,47,891/-.

4.

That the Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in not following the binding judgements on the issue.

5.

That the Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in not providing deduction u/s 54B and u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act.” (B) In this case the assessment order dated 07.12.2016 was passed by the Assessing Officer, u/s 143(3)/ 147 of the Act whereby the Assessee’s income was assessed at Rs. 1,00,53,501/- (rounded off to Rs. 1,00,53,500/-) as against returned income of Rs. 6,05,610/-. In this assessment order, an amount of Rs. 94,47,891/- was made on account of long term capital gain on sale of immovable property. The Assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was dismissed by the ld CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 16.10.2019. The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 16.10.2019 by the ld CIT(A).

(C) In the course of appellate proceedings before the ITAT a paper book containing the following particulars was filed from the Assessee’s side:-

SR Nature of Document NO. 1 Copy reply filed before Ld CIT (A) 2 Copy of Income tax computation 3 Copy of registry of land sold 4 Copy of Bank statements 5 Copy of registries of land purchased Copy of Valuation report of the 6 house constructed 7 Copy remand report of Ld AO. (C.1) At the time of hearing before us, the ld AR for the Assessee took us through the aforesaid paper book. He also read out the relevant portions of the aforesaid assessment order 07.12.2016 and the impugned appellate order dated 16.10.2019. He contended at the time of hearing before us that the ld AO as well as the ld CIT(A) have not appreciated the facts of the case properly and have passed their orders without due consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The ld Authorized Repetitive (for short the ld AR) submitted that the issue in dispute regarding aforesaid addition of Rs. 94,47,891/- may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the Assessee.

(C.2) The ld Sr. Departmental Representative (for short the ld Sr. DR) for Revenue was in agreement with the aforesaid submissions of the ld AR of the Assessee.

(C.2.1) In view of the foregoing, and as representatives of both sides; the ld AR of the Assessee as well as the ld Sr. DR for Revenue are in agreement with this; we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 16.10.2019 of the ld CIT(A) and restore the issue in dispute regarding the aforesaid addition of Rs. 94,47,891/- to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the Assessee.

(D) For statistical purposes this order is treated as partly allowed.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →